+Lawrence Calablaster No, but here's a stripèd green rabbit... with two butts. 41.media.tumblr.com/b2ade7123550c879606c7c658e3bd62a/tumblr_n6ig7wDAaj1rn3viqo1_540.png
Another credit grabber video. Saros Cycle was invented by Babylonian astronomy, the land where Abraham born. Saros cycle is accurate and still used by NASA today and integrate in the software. Same people who said that the solar eclipse is not the cause of moon blocking the sun. So, which one you should believed NASA and most western scientist who used saros cycle or the one who invented the saros cycle? Moon can be seen even in the day, we should see moon hours before eclipse. That is why Babylonian astronomy make sense to me.
Is it weird that I think Matt has the best voice ever? He could talk about making toast for 15 minutes and I'd listen. If I made an animated show, I'd need to get him to do voice-over.
+standupmaths University of Leeds did, I believe, develop a formula for "perfect" toast several years ago... of course that study was commissioned by a British(?) butter brand, so I am unsure if the formula validates against empirical evidence. Personally have not looked into this formula, as I (lately, anyway) prefer my toast toasted in melted butter, removing the need to spread said dairy product onto the toast as it sits there on the plate already cooling. Of course even cool toast is better than no toast, but that would likely be a subject for a whole new channel. Still, a standupmaths "Matt explains toast" video would be quite appreciated by all fans of said staple, with or without delving into Leeds U's formula for "perfect" toast. As Bartholomew Bartelbuss, famous toast fancier of the last century, was wont to shout: "Give me toast! Or give me pizza at least...". Excuse me, now it is time to make some toast. Cheers!
"Unfortunately, it's not that simple." *NOTHING* about the Moon's orbit is simple. The late veteran astronomer and popularizer of astronomy, Sir Fred Hoyle, once wrote that a very strong case could be made that the circumstances of our natural satellite's orbit are responsible for much of the development of advanced mathematics! Pre-*cise*-ly because, "it's never that simple." And those who got the bug for attempting to explain it, actually *made* some of those mathematical advancements. And as rankling as this video might be to some, it actually gives an excellent sense of that complication. [Major kudos, Matt!!] That said, the many types of month (and there *are* more than the 3 given here), are an indication of some of that complication. • The month of phases (which Matt is calling the "lunar" month, which is pretty redundant, and undescriptive) is called, the synodic month. = 29.530589 days • The month between nearest approaches to Earth (which are the Moon's perigees) is called the anomalistic month, because the "anomaly" of an orbiting body is the angle where it stands in its orbit, measured past its last nearest approach point. = 27.554550 days • The month between the Moon's ascending node crossings of the ecliptic plane (plane of Earth's orbit) is called the draconic month. = 27.212221 days • The month between when the Earth-Moon line returns to the same direction in space, is called the sidereal month; "sidereal" meaning, referred to the distant stars. *That* is the Moon's true orbital period, and *that* is the month Matt should have used (rather than the anomalistic month), from about 4:00 to about 4:50, to explain the ≈2 day difference required for the Moon to go from completing an orbit to lining up with the Sun again. = 27.231662 days • There’s also a tropical month, but it isn’t needed for any of this. = 27.231582 days Oh, and when he first mentions and shows the Moon’s orbit as elliptical rather than circular, the graphic of that is incorrect - the Earth is *not* at the center of that ellipse; it’s at one focus. So there’s only one perigee and one apogee in an orbit; not two of each. [Although I see he’s already made a note of this in the description.] The only other tidbit I would add to this quite excellent video, is that the saros cycle can be either 18y 11d 8h or 18y 10d 8h, depending on the fall of leap days. [NB. If there's a "Gregorian exception year" during a saros, it can be 18y 12d 8h; but that happened last in 1900, and won't again until 2100.] In any case, it is always 6585d 8h.
3:38 The Earth is actually at one of the foci of the ellipse, not in the center, because of Kepler's first law of planetary motion. That way we only have one closest point (periapsis) and one farthest point (apoapsis) per orbit of the moon.
Yes, putting the Earth on the middle of the eclipse and not at a focus point is my big regret for this video. I'll make a note of that in the description!
Apogee and perigee are specific to orbits around the earth. Perihelion and aphelion to orbits around the sun. Apoapsis and periapsis are general, and refer to similar points in any orbit around a central attracting body. The moons of Jupiter have perijove (at delightful term) and apojove (nearly as delightful). Apoapsis and periapsis are not wrong, but perigee and apogee are more common when speaking of orbits around the geoid.
@@standupmaths Earth and the Moon orbit about their barycentre (common center of mass), which lies about 4,600 km (2,900 mi) from Earth's center (about 72% of its radius). That is to say, the barycentre is within the earth in the figure (which Matt did repeatedly emphasize is NOT to scale). So in a more to scale drawing, the earth would be only ever so slightly displaced to one side. And since the earth rotates on its axis, the barycentre also rotates around that axis once a day. Or should we say the axis rotates about the barycentre once a day?
There's the Saros you mentioned here, and there's also the inex (358 synodic months or about 29 years), which has the property where if an eclipse happens in saros N and Saros N+1 is still active, there will be an eclipse in that one about 29 years later. In fact, given the solar/lunar eclipses with saros and inex both 0 (all the math works out for lunar eclipses too) you can identify each eclipse with a unique saros/inex pair!
This is perfect, thank you!! I really wanted a full, comprehensive explanation of all of the complexities of solar eclipses, as well as resources to learn more, and this video provided that perfectly!! I'm going to look at some of your other videos...
That is incorrect. When the chance of something happening is given as 1, this means there is no other chance of other things happening. The only thing that can happen is that given thing, now, and forever. The statistical certainty alluded to in this case is really bellied by the hidden assumption / meaning .... that EVENTUALLY it will happen. The number IS on the die, the card is in the deck.
I learned something today. The eclipse I'm hoping to see in 2017 is one Saros cycle after the one I saw in 1999. I know this doesn't really make it 'the same eclipse', but it kind of feels like that, which is cool! Great video (apart from the shape of the Moon's orbit, which was wrong. The Earth should be at a focus!)
I planning to do the 2009 - 2027 double as well! And yes, I did mean to put the Earth over on a focal point, but that was sacrificed in the making of the animations.
standupmaths Thanks for replying! It's cool that you take the time to do that. And the ellipse thing is such a minor quibble that it doesn't affect the message. Your videos are great, and I'm going to show this one to my son. He was watching the eclipse the other day at school, so carpe diem :)
I have not read all the comments, but another thing I noticed: The line of totality sweeps from west to east, so you should say that the 2009 eclipse went from India to the Pacific Ocean, not vice versa (and the diagrams should sweep that way too). I hope you can make this and the other corrections, because its concept is good!
Flat earthers take note. You need to include earth ROTATION in order for you to be able to use saros cycle to predict the future solar eclipses - 10:15
+Debated Nothing Yes, it is written in the description. Every time someone puts Sun to the center of an ellipse, little Kerbal dies in the most horrible way imaginable. :D
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU. It's PATHETIC. I'm not going to judge some random person walking down the street for not knowing this stuff, but if you're going to make a video you're subject to a different standard. PATHETIC, PATHETIC, PATHETIC.
At 3:45, the earth should be at one of the foci of the ellipse and the closest and furthest points should be at the far right and left of the orbit (along the semi major axis).
Thanks for a fine video. The diagrams were a little low-budget but they're better than I could do. One funny thing I noticed in the comments was how many people had gotten bent out of shape over the fact that the central objects weren't shown at a focus of the elliptical orbit. Meanwhile, I only spotted one person who noticed that the entire system was running backward! Viewed from north of the ecliptic, the planets revolve counterclockwise.
jeepien I've been scrolling through the comments looking for precisely this. It bugged me too. True, it's a completely arbitrarily, and perhaps Eurocentric, standard but it's still a standard. Look down on the north pole, Matt!!! Everything goes anti-clockwise (at least everything in this video).
Unfortunately, it's not that simple. The gravitation of all bodies in the solar system (and indeed the universe), notably Jupiter, also slightly affect the orbits, precessions, and rotations of the Earth, Moon, and Sun. All three also experience tidal effects, and of course the Earth also experiences nutation (variation in its axial tilt). Admittedly, all these effects are smaller than those mentioned in the video, but they do collectively explain why it is practically impossible to accurately predict the dates of solar eclipses in the distant future.
the 2024 north american total solar eclipse today is part of solar saros 139, exactly one saros cycle before the much-awaited 2042 total solar eclipse in my home country (the philippines) that's also in the same series
So it turns out I've been subscribed since some time after this video went up, because this is the first time I watched it. prompted by Matt's tweet just ahead of the 2017 'US' total solar eclipse. No, I'm not going back over the entire archive, at least not today.
I watched the 1999 total solar eclipse from Europe (Germany), and this coming summer I will watch the total solar eclipse from the US, where I currently work. That's one soros cycle, for the only two eclipses I will have ever watched. Of course, provided it won't be cloudy over North Carolina
Very nice and interesting video! :D Hope to see many more like this! One thing, I believe when you talked about the 2009 eclipse, you meant to say that it started over India, no finished there :)
One quibble: 3:36 you show the Moon's orbit as an ellipse with the Earth at the center of the ellipse. Actually the Earth is (roughly) at one focus of the ellipse so the Earth should be a bit to the right or left (close to the narrow part of the ellipse).
Hi Matt. First of all congratulations for your videos. Just on thing: about 4 minutes in the video when you talk about the orbit of the moon around the earth, I believe there is a small discrepancy. The moon moves in fact on an ellipse, but the earth is not on the center of the ellipse but on one of the focus (or focci, don´t know the correct English word). So the nearest and farthest points should be on the vertices of the ellipse (aphelium and perihelium).
Yes; he acknowledges the ellipse misportrayal, with regrets, in the description above. BTW, terminology: aphelion, perihelion are farthest and nearest points of a body in *solar* orbit; for Earth orbit, the terms are: • apogee, perigee. The general terms are • apoapsis, periapsis . . and for other specific central bodies, the suffixes correspond to the name of the central body. -helion is for the Sun; -gee is for Earth; -jove is for Jupiter; -astron is for a general star; etc. Also, the plural of "focus" is "foci." These are Latin, not really English, but adopted by English.
standupmaths no worries! Still found it fascinating! Also currently reading your book, it's great even if I don't understand what's going on most of the time xD
I believe it's something like 54 years and 34 days. Perhaps the answer to your question depends on your definition of "same" or how exact that "same" needs to be.
No mention of an annular eclipse which occurs when the Sun and Moon are exactly in line, but the apparent size of the Moon is smaller than that of the Sun. Hence the Sun appears as a very bright ring, or annulus, surrounding the dark disk of the Moon
12:25 where is the early 70s (1971 as i recall) event immortalized in song "you flew your lear jet up to nova scotia to see the total eclipse of the sun" ? my wife and i were there to see it - although we did not get there (from massachusetts) by lear jet.
Although he already noted that nothing is to scale I think I should point out that the lunar orbit described is incorrect, with earth at the center of the elipse. It is actually at one edge of the elipse. A full orbit of the moon means only a single cycle in earth - moon distance. speaking of which: matt! tell us about orbital mechanics please!
If the next eclipse is in 2045, then how come there were eclipses in 2015 when this came out, as well as more recently in 2017 and another happening soon in 2019? It seems that we have solar eclipses about every other year, not every 18, so what is happening here?
Sometimes I think I am smart, but then I see stuff like this and how they figured all this out blows my mind. The fact this was discovered before computers is really amazing to me: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saros_(astronomy)
I'm so excited for the solar eclipse that will happen in Wyoming in 2017. I'll have a newly minted degree in astrophysics, and it will be my first time ever in the path of totality.
So then a Saros cycle can be defined as the length of time for predicting/observing similar and notable LUNAR,TERRESTRIAL, SOLAR occurrences? thank you, I just learned something today!
4:20 nope, that's because the earth orbits the sun. The first type of month is a whole revolution in a reference frame that rotates with the earth's orbit, and the second is with a "more static" inertial reference frame. It works the same with a circular lunar orbit. It's just that the ellipse of the orbit stays in place in the inertial reference frame, so it provides a convenient point to measure from.
Oh, you did give the right explanation too. You just mashed the elliptical shape (which gives a good reference point to measure the month) with the real explanation and that was confusing to me. Don't blame you, as you show in the video, it's complicated
I saw one total eclipse in Budapest on August 1st 2008, though from my point of view it was like 99% eclipse actually. Because I was actually leaving back home on that day, and airport location didn't align perfectly for the total eclipse.
Great video but I'm guessing you outsourced your closed captioning because at places like 7:35 or so, the captioner thought you said u.s. and lips. I'd hate to think you paid much for captioning. But again, great video, and I've been sharing this with several people over the years
The perpetual Jewish calendar (lunar, with an intercalanary month every two or three years) uses a "more traditional" average length of a lunar month, that is, new moon to new moon. This length is 29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes, 3 1/3 seconds. (793/1080 of an hour). An extra couple of seconds are a small price to pay for ease of use.
For god's sake Matt, I know youre a mathematician and not an astronomer, but even I (and Im neither of the two) know that the object being orbited sits in one of the focuses of the elliptical orbit of the object orbiting it. So the moon is closest when it's at the "pointy" end of the ellipse whose focus has the earth in it, and the farthest away when it's at the opposite end of that. Please reupload with this abomination fixed.
![Eclipses can be approximated the same way as π. [ONE TAKE!]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/h9FZgaPdIuY/mqdefault.jpg)
"Unfortunately, it's not that simple…"
That is going to resonate it my dreams for the rest of my life…
"And now for something completely different."
***** ....a man with three buttocks?
+Lawrence Calablaster No, but here's a stripèd green rabbit... with two butts.
41.media.tumblr.com/b2ade7123550c879606c7c658e3bd62a/tumblr_n6ig7wDAaj1rn3viqo1_540.png
+Lawrence Calablaster and two anuses - or anii :P
Another credit grabber video.
Saros Cycle was invented by Babylonian astronomy, the land where Abraham born.
Saros cycle is accurate and still used by NASA today and integrate in the software.
Same people who said that the solar eclipse is not the cause of moon blocking the sun.
So, which one you should believed NASA and most western scientist who used saros cycle or the one who invented the saros cycle?
Moon can be seen even in the day, we should see moon hours before eclipse.
That is why Babylonian astronomy make sense to me.
Is it weird that I think Matt has the best voice ever? He could talk about making toast for 15 minutes and I'd listen. If I made an animated show, I'd need to get him to do voice-over.
Don't tempt me: I'm a big fan of toast.
+standupmaths University of Leeds did, I believe, develop a formula for "perfect" toast several years ago... of course that study was commissioned by a British(?) butter brand, so I am unsure if the formula validates against empirical evidence. Personally have not looked into this formula, as I (lately, anyway) prefer my toast toasted in melted butter, removing the need to spread said dairy product onto the toast as it sits there on the plate already cooling. Of course even cool toast is better than no toast, but that would likely be a subject for a whole new channel. Still, a standupmaths "Matt explains toast" video would be quite appreciated by all fans of said staple, with or without delving into Leeds U's formula for "perfect" toast. As Bartholomew Bartelbuss, famous toast fancier of the last century, was wont to shout: "Give me toast! Or give me pizza at least...". Excuse me, now it is time to make some toast. Cheers!
+Molly Ringwald he has a voice for being a doctor who
Yuzuru A but I think he's too funny to be a serious character
+standupmaths Do a toast video! DO IT! NOOOOOOOWWWWWW!!!!!!!!
Matt's worst nightmare:
"Fortunately, it *is* that simple!"
"Unfortunately, it's not that simple."
*NOTHING* about the Moon's orbit is simple.
The late veteran astronomer and popularizer of astronomy, Sir Fred Hoyle, once wrote that a very strong case could be made that the circumstances of our natural satellite's orbit are responsible for much of the development of advanced mathematics!
Pre-*cise*-ly because, "it's never that simple."
And those who got the bug for attempting to explain it, actually *made* some of those mathematical advancements.
And as rankling as this video might be to some, it actually gives an excellent sense of that complication.
[Major kudos, Matt!!]
That said, the many types of month (and there *are* more than the 3 given here), are an indication of some of that complication.
• The month of phases (which Matt is calling the "lunar" month, which is pretty redundant, and undescriptive) is called, the synodic month.
= 29.530589 days
• The month between nearest approaches to Earth (which are the Moon's perigees) is called the anomalistic month, because the "anomaly" of an orbiting body is the angle where it stands in its orbit, measured past its last nearest approach point.
= 27.554550 days
• The month between the Moon's ascending node crossings of the ecliptic plane (plane of Earth's orbit) is called the draconic month.
= 27.212221 days
• The month between when the Earth-Moon line returns to the same direction in space, is called the sidereal month; "sidereal" meaning, referred to the distant stars. *That* is the Moon's true orbital period, and *that* is the month Matt should have used (rather than the anomalistic month), from about 4:00 to about 4:50, to explain the ≈2 day difference required for the Moon to go from completing an orbit to lining up with the Sun again.
= 27.231662 days
• There’s also a tropical month, but it isn’t needed for any of this.
= 27.231582 days
Oh, and when he first mentions and shows the Moon’s orbit as elliptical rather than circular, the graphic of that is incorrect - the Earth is *not* at the center of that ellipse; it’s at one focus. So there’s only one perigee and one apogee in an orbit; not two of each. [Although I see he’s already made a note of this in the description.]
The only other tidbit I would add to this quite excellent video, is that the saros cycle can be either 18y 11d 8h or 18y 10d 8h, depending on the fall of leap days. [NB. If there's a "Gregorian exception year" during a saros, it can be 18y 12d 8h; but that happened last in 1900, and won't again until 2100.]
In any case, it is always 6585d 8h.
ffggddss why????????
3:38 The Earth is actually at one of the foci of the ellipse, not in the center, because of Kepler's first law of planetary motion. That way we only have one closest point (periapsis) and one farthest point (apoapsis) per orbit of the moon.
Yes, putting the Earth on the middle of the eclipse and not at a focus point is my big regret for this video. I'll make a note of that in the description!
+standupmaths I would put an annotation that says "the diagram shows two apogees and perigees but only one of each is possible" or something similar.
Apogee and perigee are specific to orbits around the earth. Perihelion and aphelion to orbits around the sun. Apoapsis and periapsis are general, and refer to similar points in any orbit around a central attracting body. The moons of Jupiter have perijove (at delightful term) and apojove (nearly as delightful). Apoapsis and periapsis are not wrong, but perigee and apogee are more common when speaking of orbits around the geoid.
It was a decent effort. Why not retract it and replace it with something better? You have a very loyal audience and we will understand.
@@standupmaths Earth and the Moon orbit about their barycentre (common center of mass), which lies about 4,600 km (2,900 mi) from Earth's center (about 72% of its radius). That is to say, the barycentre is within the earth in the figure (which Matt did repeatedly emphasize is NOT to scale). So in a more to scale drawing, the earth would be only ever so slightly displaced to one side. And since the earth rotates on its axis, the barycentre also rotates around that axis once a day. Or should we say the axis rotates about the barycentre once a day?
Person: what's one plus one?
Me: 2
Matt: unfortunately it's not that simple
5,000SubscribersNoVideos why?????
the solar eclipse of 2015
very nice clouds. I see those often. don't usually go out to watch them
Unfortuanatly, It's not that simple.
I'm here after Annular Solar Eclipse on December 26, 2019 here in the Southern Philippines.
So lucky in my lifetime I saw it once again.
There's the Saros you mentioned here, and there's also the inex (358 synodic months or about 29 years), which has the property where if an eclipse happens in saros N and Saros N+1 is still active, there will be an eclipse in that one about 29 years later. In fact, given the solar/lunar eclipses with saros and inex both 0 (all the math works out for lunar eclipses too) you can identify each eclipse with a unique saros/inex pair!
Ahhhhh! The earth not being at the focus of the ellipse at 3:36 is driving me crazy!
This is perfect, thank you!! I really wanted a full, comprehensive explanation of all of the complexities of solar eclipses, as well as resources to learn more, and this video provided that perfectly!! I'm going to look at some of your other videos...
0:39 To scale. Sun=Moon=Earth=~1/3 Matt Parker's head.
I searched "eclipse but it's not that simple" because I wanted to find this video again, and it did show up :P
"the probability of that happening is literally astronomical" - but a statistical certainty.
That is incorrect. When the chance of something happening is given as 1, this means there is no other chance of other things happening. The only thing that can happen is that given thing, now, and forever. The statistical certainty alluded to in this case is really bellied by the hidden assumption / meaning .... that EVENTUALLY it will happen. The number IS on the die, the card is in the deck.
+Hythloday71 when the statistical chance of something happening eventually is 1 is what i think he meant
Unfortuanatly, It's not that simple.
I learned something today. The eclipse I'm hoping to see in 2017 is one Saros cycle after the one I saw in 1999. I know this doesn't really make it 'the same eclipse', but it kind of feels like that, which is cool! Great video (apart from the shape of the Moon's orbit, which was wrong. The Earth should be at a focus!)
I planning to do the 2009 - 2027 double as well!
And yes, I did mean to put the Earth over on a focal point, but that was sacrificed in the making of the animations.
standupmaths Thanks for replying! It's cool that you take the time to do that. And the ellipse thing is such a minor quibble that it doesn't affect the message. Your videos are great, and I'm going to show this one to my son. He was watching the eclipse the other day at school, so carpe diem :)
I have not read all the comments, but another thing I noticed: The line of totality sweeps from west to east, so you should say that the 2009 eclipse went from India to the Pacific Ocean, not vice versa (and the diagrams should sweep that way too). I hope you can make this and the other corrections, because its concept is good!
Flat earthers take note. You need to include earth ROTATION in order for you to be able to use saros cycle to predict the future solar eclipses - 10:15
Exactly 💯!
I got enough to keep me from being totally ignorant about the basics. Thanks Matt!
Please keep making videos. This one was fascinating!
Jayder845 Unfortunately, it's not that simple.
"Unfortunately it's not that simple!" is the new "But it gets worse!"
That orbital diagram made me want to cry. Not how elliptical orbits work at all (but I'm sure you know that already)
+Debated Nothing Clearly Matt is not a KSP player.
+Debated Nothing It made me facepalm, cry, and scroll down to read the comments..
+Debated Nothing Yes, it is written in the description. Every time someone puts Sun to the center of an ellipse, little Kerbal dies in the most horrible way imaginable. :D
I'm glad to see that other people caught that. XD
Debated Nothing "In fact, there's pretty much nothing in this video, that's to scale."
-Matt Parker
Sure the diagram is not to scale, but putting the Earth at the center of the ellipse rather than at one of its focal points is inexcusable.
it annoys me uguggghghgg
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU. It's PATHETIC. I'm not going to judge some random person walking down the street for not knowing this stuff, but if you're going to make a video you're subject to a different standard. PATHETIC, PATHETIC, PATHETIC.
I would subscribe..Unfortunately, it's not that simple
Nah, joking. Totally subbed :D
*simple
That nobody has commented this in 3 years is surprising.
Aaaaaarrrrrggghhhhh, the earth not being in the focal point of the ellipse in the animation is driving me craaaaaazzzzyyyyy!
Same here. It gave me feminism.
Really liking this new upload schedule (lets be honest though, there really wasn't one before). Keep up the great work and high quality of vids mate!
Sadly this channel had been unloved for a very long time. But I'm finally giving it the attention it needs!
At 3:45, the earth should be at one of the foci of the ellipse and the closest and furthest points should be at the far right and left of the orbit (along the semi major axis).
Thanks for a fine video. The diagrams were a little low-budget but they're better than I could do. One funny thing I noticed in the comments was how many people had gotten bent out of shape over the fact that the central objects weren't shown at a focus of the elliptical orbit. Meanwhile, I only spotted one person who noticed that the entire system was running backward! Viewed from north of the ecliptic, the planets revolve counterclockwise.
jeepien I've been scrolling through the comments looking for precisely this. It bugged me too. True, it's a completely arbitrarily, and perhaps Eurocentric, standard but it's still a standard. Look down on the north pole, Matt!!! Everything goes anti-clockwise (at least everything in this video).
Unfortunately, it's not that simple. The gravitation of all bodies in the solar system (and indeed the universe), notably Jupiter, also slightly affect the orbits, precessions, and rotations of the Earth, Moon, and Sun. All three also experience tidal effects, and of course the Earth also experiences nutation (variation in its axial tilt). Admittedly, all these effects are smaller than those mentioned in the video, but they do collectively explain why it is practically impossible to accurately predict the dates of solar eclipses in the distant future.
That elliptical orbit diagram made Jebediah cry.
Never thought I'd will laugh watching a video about the math of an eclipse. Well done,mate. Well done.
Love it, also love Matt's book.
This time i will completely understand the maths in his video.....
Unfortunately its not that simple
The Matt Parker Drinking Game: Take a shot every time "Unfortunately, it's not that simple ..." is said.
the 2024 north american total solar eclipse today is part of solar saros 139, exactly one saros cycle before the much-awaited 2042 total solar eclipse in my home country (the philippines) that's also in the same series
this isnt to scale. unfortunately, it's not that simple.
Unfortunately, its not to scale
why??????
I'm so glad Matt learned how to do his sound balance better in later years.
I really needed this video thank you very much for making it.
So it turns out I've been subscribed since some time after this video went up, because this is the first time I watched it. prompted by Matt's tweet just ahead of the 2017 'US' total solar eclipse.
No, I'm not going back over the entire archive, at least not today.
I watched the 1999 total solar eclipse from Europe (Germany), and this coming summer I will watch the total solar eclipse from the US, where I currently work. That's one soros cycle, for the only two eclipses I will have ever watched. Of course, provided it won't be cloudy over North Carolina
This was great! You should make more videos.
Yeah I totally agree
Very nice and interesting video! :D Hope to see many more like this! One thing, I believe when you talked about the 2009 eclipse, you meant to say that it started over India, no finished there :)
Well spotted! I completely messed that up. Nuts. I'll add a note or something…
Yeah well. In such a long video, one small thing will be wrong sooner or later :p
I'd love to learn more about solar eclipses. Unfortunately, it's not that simple.
Ahem ... here is my theory: Matt spent time in Awstralya and that's where - and when, he acquired his sense of humour. ~~~
Unfortunately, it's not that simple.
@@eancarris3850 :(
I mean...he was born there, so...
My astronomy teacher: "You want a big grade? Unfortunately, it's not that simple"
One quibble: 3:36 you show the Moon's orbit as an ellipse with the Earth at the center of the ellipse. Actually the Earth is (roughly) at one focus of the ellipse so the Earth should be a bit to the right or left (close to the narrow part of the ellipse).
Video highlights:
2:13
3:19
5:22
6:30
7:09
7:20
10:41
14:17
You're welcome.
Thanks!
Doing this definitely was *not that simple* .
I really appreciate it.👍
3:35 Unforgiveable matt,
the earth should be in one of the foci of the ellipse.
"Unfortunately, it's not that simple..."
Okay, okay, okay, I get it, fine, time to go dust off the ol' copy of Numerical Recipies in C.
Hi Matt. First of all congratulations for your videos. Just on thing: about 4 minutes in the video when you talk about the orbit of the moon around the earth, I believe there is a small discrepancy. The moon moves in fact on an ellipse, but the earth is not on the center of the ellipse but on one of the focus (or focci, don´t know the correct English word). So the nearest and farthest points should be on the vertices of the ellipse (aphelium and perihelium).
Yes; he acknowledges the ellipse misportrayal, with regrets, in the description above.
BTW, terminology:
aphelion, perihelion are farthest and nearest points of a body in *solar* orbit; for Earth orbit, the terms are:
• apogee, perigee.
The general terms are
• apoapsis, periapsis
. . and for other specific central bodies, the suffixes correspond to the name of the central body.
-helion is for the Sun;
-gee is for Earth;
-jove is for Jupiter;
-astron is for a general star;
etc.
Also, the plural of "focus" is "foci."
These are Latin, not really English, but adopted by English.
2:13 that threatening "astronomical" comming ot get you!
"Simply, it's not that unfortunate."
Alexandre Fyne why????????
Great video Matt, but the music at the end goes up a bit too loud so we can't hear what you're saying.
Yes, good point. I made this on the road (chasing the eclipse all week!) and both sound and colour mixing leave much to be desired.
standupmaths no worries! Still found it fascinating! Also currently reading your book, it's great even if I don't understand what's going on most of the time xD
Hey Matt, I'd love to see a video on how often the moon is in the same phase at the same time and same spot in the sky..
I believe it's something like 54 years and 34 days.
Perhaps the answer to your question depends on your definition of "same" or how exact that "same" needs to be.
No mention of an annular eclipse which occurs when the Sun and Moon are exactly in line, but the apparent size of the Moon is smaller than that of the Sun. Hence the Sun appears as a very bright ring, or annulus, surrounding the dark disk of the Moon
Good point, I did feel like the video was a bit short!
Yay n-body orbital mechanics! A much underappreciated field of mathematics and physics!
I skipped school on Friday just to find a place in Norway that was not filled with clouds. And I will never regret that decision.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. I have to write paper on this. Subscribed!
Thanks for posting this. It was very helpful!
12:25
where is the early 70s (1971 as i recall) event immortalized in song
"you flew your lear jet up to nova scotia to see the total eclipse of the sun" ?
my wife and i were there to see it -
although we did not get there (from massachusetts) by lear jet.
How something you think should be simple is not that simple , but what a great job trying to explain it all 👍👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
The music was kinda loud, but great video!!! I was able to watch the partial eclipse from Spain, it was really cool!!
Although he already noted that nothing is to scale I think I should point out that the lunar orbit described is incorrect, with earth at the center of the elipse. It is actually at one edge of the elipse. A full orbit of the moon means only a single cycle in earth - moon distance.
speaking of which: matt! tell us about orbital mechanics please!
Thanks Matt. that was a brilliant video :D
Year 2100, finally found a video explaining solar eclipses.
WHAT IS THE END MUSIC!! It's AMAZING!!
(great video btw :3)
standupmaths.bandcamp.com/track/stand-up-maths-theme
If the next eclipse is in 2045, then how come there were eclipses in 2015 when this came out, as well as more recently in 2017 and another happening soon in 2019? It seems that we have solar eclipses about every other year, not every 18, so what is happening here?
Wait how are there so many different saros cycles?
All the 'unfortunately, its not that simple's:
3:19
5:22
6:29
7:09
7:20
10:41
There should be a hell of a lot more to be honest...
That eliptical orbit that is not an elipse hurt my eyes!
This video made me realise, The size of Moon and the Sun would have helped in confusing the Greeks back in the day.
Brilliant. Loved the insight. Genius.
I am happy to be here because it's not that simple.
I'm glad someone else has to figure this out and not me!
The moon's orbit is also changing. It is also drifting farther away from the earth.
“Nothing in this video is to scale.” Your eye and your head is to scale.
Unfortunately, it's not that simple
Won't the 'which hemisphere is facing the sun' part also affect how high north or low south the eclipse is visible?
Sometimes I think I am smart, but then I see stuff like this and how they figured all this out blows my mind. The fact this was discovered before computers is really amazing to me:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saros_(astronomy)
Matt, I bet you any amount that "unfortunately, it's not that simple" will become a meme.
I'm so excited for the solar eclipse that will happen in Wyoming in 2017. I'll have a newly minted degree in astrophysics, and it will be my first time ever in the path of totality.
So then a Saros cycle can be defined as the length of time for predicting/observing similar and notable LUNAR,TERRESTRIAL, SOLAR occurrences? thank you, I just learned something today!
So are you telling me that the moon will not continue to orbit along the equator but rather in the total opposite direction?
4:20 nope, that's because the earth orbits the sun. The first type of month is a whole revolution in a reference frame that rotates with the earth's orbit, and the second is with a "more static" inertial reference frame. It works the same with a circular lunar orbit. It's just that the ellipse of the orbit stays in place in the inertial reference frame, so it provides a convenient point to measure from.
Oh, you did give the right explanation too. You just mashed the elliptical shape (which gives a good reference point to measure the month) with the real explanation and that was confusing to me. Don't blame you, as you show in the video, it's complicated
Yes, it was a challenge to decide what order everything should go in and which bits to combine.
I wonder if he can do the math about the curvature! That would be interesting!
I saw one total eclipse in Budapest on August 1st 2008, though from my point of view it was like 99% eclipse actually. Because I was actually leaving back home on that day, and airport location didn't align perfectly for the total eclipse.
3:37
"Rogue autofocus" again I guess 😂
Keep up with great work! :)
Awesome video
always amazed me that when we look at the sky it's like if the moon and the sun have the same size, what a wondeful coincidence.
Well done mate/Dude!
Would i as the sun not see the far side of the moon and not the earth facing side of the moon during a new moon phase.
Great video but I'm guessing you outsourced your closed captioning because at places like 7:35 or so, the captioner thought you said u.s. and lips. I'd hate to think you paid much for captioning. But again, great video, and I've been sharing this with several people over the years
amazing video hope more people get to watch it !!1
The perpetual Jewish calendar (lunar, with an intercalanary month every two or three years) uses a "more traditional" average length of a lunar month, that is, new moon to new moon. This length is 29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes, 3 1/3 seconds. (793/1080 of an hour).
An extra couple of seconds are a small price to pay for ease of use.
this saved my butt on a math project so than you sooo much!
At 3:40 the earth is not in a foci..............................
How come your video doesn’t mention about the solar eclipse that happened this year in 2017?
He recorded it before the 2015 eclipse. He says so in the first few minutes of the video.
Think about it.
That orbital diagram is totally a Parker Orbit.
Why are all the animations rotating backwards.
And how could that get the egg heads?
can we predict new saros cycles?
For god's sake Matt, I know youre a mathematician and not an astronomer, but even I (and Im neither of the two) know that the object being orbited sits in one of the focuses of the elliptical orbit of the object orbiting it. So the moon is closest when it's at the "pointy" end of the ellipse whose focus has the earth in it, and the farthest away when it's at the opposite end of that. Please reupload with this abomination fixed.
Not that simple. The center of gravity is inside Earth but not always inside one of the objects.